Opinion
January 30, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (McMahon, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his statements to the police were the fruits of an unlawful arrest. We disagree. The hearing testimony indicates that defendant and his companion fit the description of the perpetrators of a robbery and shooting which occurred less than five minutes earlier, and approximately two blocks from where the defendant was apprehended. Under the circumstances, and in view of the furtive behavior of the defendant and his companion, the police possessed sufficient "reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed, or was about to commit a crime, such that pursuit by the officers was justified" (People v Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734, 736; People v Greaves, 123 A.D.2d 445, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 712). The arresting officer's drawing of his gun as he approached the defendant did not convert the confrontation into an arrest, since this was a reasonable self-protective measure in light of the officer's knowledge that at least one of the perpetrators of the crime under investigation was armed and dangerous (see, People v Chestnut, 51 N.Y.2d 14, cert denied 449 U.S. 1018; People v Finlayson, 76 A.D.2d 670, lv denied 51 N.Y.2d 1011, cert denied 450 U.S. 931; People v Crutchfield, 111 A.D.2d 346, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 762). Thereafter, the defendant's spontaneous inculpatory statement to the officer provided probable cause for his arrest (see, CPL 140.10 [b]; People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.